Re: [Fwd: Re: IAB comments on draft-baker-liaisons-00.txt]

[Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>]

Hi James,

At 08:23 AM 8/27/2003 -0700, James Kempf wrote:
> > The biggest potential issue I see is that it is not so
> > clear how we define a "consensus based" or an "authoritative"
> > answer back from a WG to another SDO.
> >
> Up to the IESG to decide, as part of managing how ongoing liasons are done.

I thought that the IAB managed liaisons.  Am I confused?

> > It is a similar issue (in my view) as how we decide who can
> > be an official IETF liaison to some other SDO at one of their
> > meetings or such.
> >
>
> I believe the IAB has some input into who is the IETF liason representative,
> at least, that was the case with Scott and ITU-T. But I am not clear whether
> IAB is formally responsable for the appointment of the representative, as is
> the case with approval of the liason relationship itself. Does the IESG
> formally do the appointment or does the IAB?

Looking at the IAB charter, it appears that either the IAB or the
IESG can appoint liaisons "as appropriate".

"(f) External Liaison

The IAB acts as representative of the interests of the IETF and the
Internet Society in technical liaison relationships with other
organizations concerned with standards and other technical and
organizational issues relevant to the world-wide Internet. Liaisons
are kept as informal as possible and must be of demonstrable value in
improving the quality of IETF specifications. Individual members of
the IETF are appointed as liaisons to other organizations by the
IAB or IESG as appropriate."

The charter doesn't indicate who decided which is appropriate.
Presumably Harald and Leslie?

Margaret